Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 13, 2013 11:00am-11:31am PST

11:00 am
65 thousand dollars for to the welfare fund. we discussed amending the title of the resolution to make it clear for a total dollar value of the entire contract of $4 million. we're here to request that it pass out of committee to the full board >> thank you very much supervisor mar. >> i want to thank you for the information. i asked about the number of inmates with children it's a huge percent >> it is. >> can you say that for the audience. >> of course, our population that has children it approximately 40 percent sprooirls under the national average of 50 percent. >> thank you. >> it's so important we provide
11:01 am
services ease invested in the one family program and a okay. thank you very much any other questions we'll go to mr. roses budget analyst report. the committee has recommend we approve the resolution and i'll be happy to respond to any questions >> okay. thank you mr. rose. >> if no other questions thank you. we'll open it to public comment public comment is closed. okay. can we move this item forward mr. clerk call item number 5 >> item 57 elections to enter into an agreement with the voting system incorporated to extend the term of their all the time to december 13th not to exceed the agreement to
11:02 am
approximately $19 million. >> good morning, supervisors. john. the contract all the time is for 3 years. there's no other system in california that can predict the elections there's nothing coming in the election offices. so if we have a 3 year contract the current system in unifies we'll have a new system. there are notice cost increases it's a flat extension to 3 more years. and you know, i, take any questions on that >> supervisor mar. >> a real quick one. it seems like if the duo minimum
11:03 am
has a monopoly are there other companies that are developing the item in their own systems >> i'm not aware of any. in 2005 there were 3 major vendors that have voting systems in california and we had a current vendor at the time and another company. they implemented the choice voting starting in 2004 decided not to upgrade their systems. so the other companies actually told us that they weren't going to bid because of the voting system. right now titus it seems like they'll be the vendor coming
11:04 am
into california >> i know that as different state level legislation moves forward on technology to there voting easy and access i'm wondering would the do minimum systems are they looking at other online systems for voting or tech driven changes in the voting system. they are in canada they've had limited test programs where they allow people to vote on line. it's in canada. not that i'm aware of in california. there's been more and more discussion and questions in the last few years. people are more accepting of the
11:05 am
idea that it's one component of voting but then there's always the concern of security. so people access that >> and this is as closely related to the item we're discussing but in discussions with other city people around the country some of moving towards all mail in ballots. i know we have a history of going to the polling place but people have proposed we go to a exceptionally in off year elections more of a male in ballot >> it's been before the legislation to allow all counties to do it that way it's been voted down. there are some counties that are
11:06 am
having expectation to the rule and vote by mail. so that's an option for san francisco if it wants to go that route. but at the same time there are polling places in san francisco that are well loved. when we talk about the voting places there are option again ideas. but i know san francisco exceptionally geographically the way it's situated it would be possible to have voting places around san francisco. the last question i know the legislative analyst budget analyst suggests this is a policy consideration but for a 3 year contract or extension did you consider maybe a 1 to 2 year
11:07 am
extension maybe companies will catch and do enemy maybe the only compa company >> there's a thought there might be a better system coming but right now when things i know legislation has been passed in california to allow secretary states to bypass the federal elections commission but still the current process takes six months to a year to get it certified. right now there's nothing before the states office the duo minute
11:08 am
massachusetts has the component side of it but there's the fee side it would be tough to have a system be approved on secretaries day to be awarded the privilege to execute a contract and the system to be up in a couple of years >> just is quick question to follow up. the question about an all mail in election you have to be enabled by the state; right? no matter what type of election whatever it is it has to be approved by state >> that goes back and forth. i've heard it through the vote by mail but really it might be r be a question formerly to the
11:09 am
city attorney's office >> complaegz any other questions i hope you get some rest and a mr. rose budget analyst report. >> yes. as shown this tables 2 and 3 those tables are on pages 17 and 18 of our report. the proposed cost a as indicated would remain at the same rate of $400,000 plus and 3 hundred plus for maintenance and license agreement and ross the rates that are currently charges under the existing 2007 to 2013 agreement. we also point out over the 3 year shown in table 3 the total costs to the city would be $3 million plus. and we discussed the policy
11:10 am
matter on page 19 of our report we fully occur with the decision to not competitively bid we recommend you approve the proposed ordinance thank you very much mr. rose. colleagues, any questions. seeing none, we'll open it up to public comment any public comment on this item? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues. supervisor avalos. >> actually, i have a question i'm trying to get my memory jogged on the original contract in 2005. i wasn't on the board at the time by the way, by wasn't there something around the storage of the documents of configuration of the department elections.
11:11 am
there was some storage elsewhere. i'm not sure that was packaged with the original contract do you recall. >> i recall the storage issue but not the specifics of that issue and how that was finally, resolved. >> i know about it. it was was it part of the original krablt or based on the storing of documents in that as i recall. you know what i'm talking about. there was no document storage there was a billed out we have a pier 48 part. there was a built out of the site >> that would have been separately from this contract
11:12 am
for election services. >> the build out was in the contract original and when the contract was in place. >> right you so that's not part of this contract currently. >> no. there's no build out. >> it's already done. >> right. >> any further questions. >> okay. can i have a motion to move this item forward without opposition >> item 67 resolution extending an agreement between the 71 and s and s trucking corporation and increasing the stimulated cumulative amount of 89 million plus for hauld sold and grid. we have a few speakers here >> thank you for having me good morning, supervisors. i'm tommy.
11:13 am
i'm the general manager for the puc. the matter before you is a matter of a contract approval for the grit hall for 2 years. the board approval is needed pursuant to the charter it must be accepted and the total cost will exceed the $2 million threshold. it will be needed in a lot of city we have solids we have to haul outside the county and the intermit that must be hauled out. if we didn't have this service we would have two days left of holding and the sludge would pile up. the puc would have this contact
11:14 am
where the trucking has provided the services to date. the resolution before you exercises a 2 year option for the trucking by rem this resolution it will be preventing a gap. we ask you move this forward and happy to answer any questions you may have >> colleagues, any questions. supervisor avalos. yes, thank you for your prevention. there was a lawsuit that was done by s and s trucking to the city and i believe it was based on it has been resolved because we got the contract and i heard the concerns about s and s not
11:15 am
paying prevailing wage and their truckers are dependent contractors. i'm wondering what assures we have that this company is meeting the standards we have as a city. so we have s and s truck but we have ron to talk specifically about this line >> supervisor ron from the city attorney's office. the first one was about a lawsuit there wasn't a lawsuit at first, it came to the board to be approved and that does not get approved and a s and s sued and under the charter provision
11:16 am
918 b this cowered had no authority. this extension would put it it above the authority so the lawsuit is an old matter. as for praefl wages at the time the contract was under 21 c 5 for hall and a sludge and it required that the employees be paid praefl wages. the law changed that any individual who hauled be - it not be applied to other contracts it is amended and only applies to new contracts so it wouldn't apply to old contracts only new contracts >> and do we know the magnitude of people who are doing hall
11:17 am
that perhaps are not paid praefl wage that are independent contractors. >> i believe that is the contractor. >> so what we do know they're meeting our exceptions even though their providing a service they're meeting our l.b. e controls and that's why we're here to ask for an extension to incorporate that into the next contract. >> i assume that s and s would be responding to a future r s p. so they want the track record >> that's the assumption they're here to answer any of your questions. >> thank you. well, if they're here i have a couple of questions >> supervisor avalos.
11:18 am
if there are s and s trucking folks here >> i'm the vice manager i'll be happy to a answer questions. >> while i was the administrative aid it was knoll people in s and s company who had done the working with work and this is clearly a new small business. and people who had that extension so my concern moving forward is the standards people are paying the praefl wage is that something you want to make standard and you're continuing to meet with the future work >> that's something we've met with the work.
11:19 am
i'm not about the new rules for future contract. i know that the d i r has set the standards for the prooefl wage. several publications that owner operators are not included from the wage but if you're paying all the money you're paying to the truck and it equals the praefl wage the driver should get that. it would seemed to me that the use of owner operators or independence is an issue for the city or this board. i remind you the city has in place a goal an l.b. e goal. the experience was met only by owner operators that were l.b. e
11:20 am
for the city. to say we're users owner operators and that's not the goal and to have the l.b. e's meet the the goal is a double standard. the goal was 7 and a half percent and 20 to 25 percent. so moving forward if you would say is s and s meeting the goals i would say yes and a okay. that's critical when it comes to a new contract we'll have with the city and to the extent you were able to satisfy that you have a great advantage to be awarded the contract. i want to make sure it's all even we're meeting our l.b. e
11:21 am
and wage goals. but thank you >> thank you. colleagues, any further questions? supervisor mar >> well, i see that donna is here from the labor enforcement. can you address that the prooefl wages and the double standard >> i think it's possible to meet both. >> okay. colleagues any further questions. okay mr. rose can we go to our report, please >> yes. mr. chairman on the top of page if of our report in table 2 as of september 30th
11:22 am
under the influence puc had expended $2 million plus not to exceed $9 million exciting to haul tons of solids and brick for the treatment plants of an average cost of if dollars and $0.60 per ton. on table 3 based on nature costs the proposed contracted is s and s trucking is expended for 2 additional years the puc current estimated total of $2 million plus in costs. with a contingent of a total not to exceed the costs it $13,500,000. we did discuss the policy aspect
11:23 am
of praefl wage requirements on page 25 and because of that issue our recommendations on page 26 we recommend that you amend this resolution to confirm the puc's tension not not to extend the s and s contract and you approve the proposed resolution as amended. i'll add this to your option and if you don't accept our proposal the praefl wage will stand >> thank you mr. rose any questions for our budget analyst. to the puc any remarks to those questions >> we'll comply. >> anyone wish to comment on this item? >> ace washington.
11:24 am
i would be remiss if i didn't come and speak for s and s as supervisor avalos has a long history before you came on board. i can testify you guys know i'm up here recollecting all the time but with my history with s and s when they were involved that the human rights commission. he is has been in my opinion a very valuable part of employment in san francisco. although it's not also been the situations but i can say that the experience dealing with some of the truckers they're very satisfied with his performance there with s and s. i as a person in the community
11:25 am
have been involved that the history i can stand up here with an open mind in my opinion he is s and s trucking is forthcoming and working closely with the truckers. although i have not been working with them but i'm in support of s and s >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we have a motion to accept the motions from the budget analyst we can do that without objection. so moved. mr. clerk are there any other items and a mr. chairman, i ask they have the amended resolution to us by 9:00 a.m. >> excuse me. we have a request from our clerk
11:26 am
you provide the contract. >> the resolution to us tomorrow more and more by 89 a.m. i believe i'm working with our department and a mr. clerk any other business before us. no, that's it and that concludes our agenda for today. thank
11:27 am
11:28 am
>> hello, i am with the san francisco parks department serious we are featuring some wonderful locations in your and very own backyard. this is your chance to find your heart in san francisco with someone special.
11:29 am
we are here at the lovely and historic palace of fine arts, located in the bustling marina district. originally built for the 1950's exposition, the palace is situated along san francisco's waterfront. it is ada accessible and is reached by the 28, 30, and 91 bus lines. with its rotunda, columns, uncut the reflecting waters against the eucalyptus trees, it is one of the most romantic settings for special dates, and memorable proposals. it is also a perfect spot where you can relax with that special someone while listening to the water and fountain in the lagoon.
11:30 am
beautiful to view from many locations, and inside is an ideal place to walk around with your loved ones. the palace is the most popular wedding location in the city park system. reservations for weddings and other events are available at shakespeares' guard and refers -- has plants referred to in shakespeare's plays and poems. located near the museum and the california academy of sciences, shakespeares garden was designed in 1928 by the california spring blossom association. flowers and plants played an important part in shakespeares literary masterpieces.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on